He will not be the great martyr he saught. We will not strike him down and he will not become more powerful than imagine as he will not collect 200 dollars virgins. Well, I guess he will be the virgin girlfriend of someone.

Back to the issue, does anyone get the idea that maybe the jurors might have been revisiting the merits of the liability/guilt phase a little, even in the back of their minds? From what I recall of the news reports, the government's case on causation seemed to be more than a little shaky, as the defense emphasized repeatedly.

this might be controversial, but i disagree with bonkers. i'm against the death penalty, no matter the instance. no justice system is perfect enough to decide whether another human being deserves to be killed. the farther the system moves away from "an eye for an eye," the better.

You've got to be kidding me. I think he's just trying to get as much publicity as possible for himself before he's hidden away in a prison somewhere and becomes the object of constant torture and humiliation for the rest of his miserable life.

I'm not a huge death penalty fan myself, but to me this seems like the kind of case the death penalty was made for. Do you think that it's possible the jurors thought he deserved the death penalty, but chose to give him life because they realized he was hoping to be martyred?